Brothers Keeper Ministries v. United States Government

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01683
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 24cv1683 DMS BROTHERS KEEPER MINISTRIES,

11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Brothers Keeper Ministries filed this suit to contest the validity of the 18 United States’ assessments and tax liens against it. (ECF No. 1.) In October 2024 the 19 Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 6) 20 (noting that only natural persons can proceed pro se and that Plaintiff is not represented by 21 an attorney). For the reasons below the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with 22 prejudice. 23 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. See 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). 24 Section 7421, also known as the Anti-Injunction Act, prohibits suits that attempt to restrain 25 the IRS's tax assessment and collection activities. Gilbert v. United States, 998 F.3d 410, 26 414 (9th Cir. 2021). Subject to limited exceptions that do not apply here, district courts 27 “must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction any suit that does not fall within one 28 of the exceptions to the Act.” Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 523, 525 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 |}Here, the complaint asks the Court to void “the Defendant’s illegal/unlawful 2 assessments/tax liens.” (ECF No. 1.) Such a suit plainly seeks to retrain the assessment 3 ||and collection of taxes. See Gilbert, 998 F.3d at 414. Therefore, the Court lacks subject 4 || matter jurisdiction and must dismiss this case. Ruhrgas AG vy. Marathon Oil Co., 526 US. 5 583 (1999) (courts have obligation to sua sponte dismiss for lack of subject matter 6 || jurisdiction); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss the action if subject 7 || matter jurisdiction is lacking). 8 There may be other reasons why this case should be dismissed. But because the 9 ||Court lacks jurisdiction, “1t can proceed no further and must dismiss the case on that 10 account.” Sinochem Intl Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 434 (2007). 11 || Therefore, the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: January 17, 2025 >» 14 rn yn. 15 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28